JCT: You'll remember that Le Droit reported that three of
the six Gatineau Ganja Growers who filed papers for release
pending appeal had been put off until today, Aug. 10 2005.

Rodney Barclay, Pierre Landry and Marcel Mercier had had
their paperwork delayed by the prison authorities and didn't
get heard the last time.

Marcel is a particularly sad case. He has AIDS. His doctor
prescribed 300 grams of marijuana a month, 10 grams a day to
help him keep his chemical cocktail of AIDS drugs down. The
Minister of Health, a non-doctor, overruled the doctor's
prescription so he had to break the law to follow his
doctor's advice.

We've seen non-doctors pull this stunt before. Health Canada
pharmacists have been trained to stall applications until
the patients die, if possible. And they've been successful
in several cases. Remember how Pharmacist of Death Cindy
Cripps-Prawak had testified that they had stalled 94
applicants so well that 15 had already died. It never made
the news!

He had his parole after 1/6th of his sentence denied because
of the high risk of his re-offending by following his
doctors' advice. He had his parole after 1/3rd of his
sentence denied for the same reason. Obviously, knowing he
has AIDS, his parole board seems to be trying to kill him.

When the jail refused to provide his doctor's prescribed 300
grams of marijuana in jail, the doctor prescribed Marinol,
the articifial version. The jail denied his prescription on
the grounds their pharmacy didn't carry Marinol. Still
trying to make him dead.

And finally, Marcel could have filed his appeal on time but
his jailers stalled him so bad that he then became late even
though he filed his papers at the same time as Rodney who is
on time. Why they didn't file his papers two weeks ago and
kept him to today just follows the pattern of abuse. So
Rodney Barclay has appeal number #550-10-003252-051 and
Pierre Landry had #550-10-003254-057. Any bets that Michael
Funk is #550-10-003253?

And worse of all, they've going up against Justice Pierre
Dalphond, the judge who dreamed up that Krieger only applies
to sick people because Krieger was sick. There's nothing
tougher than dealing with a judge who makes things up as he
goes.

So I prepared statements to be read this morning in both
English and French with all the extra appendices necessary
to counter the judge's fertile imagination. Maybe they'll
have to tell the judge to keep to the law books, not his
dreeamland version.

Quebec Court of Appeal
English Representations for Rodney Barclay and Pierre Landry

1. Appendix #1 is the Dec. 23 2003 Supreme Court of Canada
Bulletin where Justices McLachlin, Major and Fish note:
"Dec 11, 2000 Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Acton J.)
Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
inasmuch as it relates to marihuana, declared inconsistent
with the Charter..." The Supreme Court says S.7(1) is
inconsistent with the Charter, that's all. That's enough. It
does not say say Section 7(1) declared inconsistent with the
Charter "only for sick Canadians."
App.#1 Supreme Court Bulletin Dec. 23 2003

2. After epileptic Terry Parker had the S.4(1) prohibition
on marijuana possession declared invalid by the Ontario
Court of Appeal, the Crown amended the Criminal Code and
stayed the remaining 4000 marijuana possession charges
against all Canadians, not just sick Canadians.
App.#2 4000 pot charges stayed since Aug. 1 2001

3. After Multiple Sclerosis sufferer Grant Krieger had the
S.7(1) prohibition on marijuana cultivation declared invalid
by the Alberta Court of Appeal the Crown did not amend the
Criminal Code and did not stay charges against any remaining
Canadians, sick or otherwise.
App.#3 Krieger Court of Appeal invalidation of S.7(1)

4. Yet Crown Attorney David S. Frankel admits in the Supreme
Court Memorandum that "S.7(1) has been declared of no force
and effect by the highest court in Alberta."
App.#4 Crown admission of invalidity of S.7(1)

5. The media misrepresented the Krieger invalidation of
S.7(1) for all Canadians as a personal win for Krieger.
App.#5 Calgary Herald S.7(1) invalidation misrepresentation

6. On Dec 20 2004, Justice Goudge of the Ontario Court of
Appeal panel that had found the possession offence had
become invalid on Terry Parker Day which caused the 4000
stays took seriously and granted the application for release
pending appeal of Mike South who was convicted of possessing
marijuana on the basis of the Krieger cultivation
invalidity.
App.#6 Mike South Inmate appeal to Ontario Court of Appeal

7. On Feb 01 2004, the Nielsen appeal was filed based on the
Parker and Krieger invalidations of S.4(1) and S.7(1).
App.#7 Nielsen Notice of Appeal

8. So the highest court in Alberta rules that the S.7(1)
prohibition on marijuana is invalid, the Crown admits S.7(1)
was declared invalid by Alberta, the Supreme Court of Canada
notes S.7(1) was declared inconsistent with the Charter by
Alberta, and Ontario Court of Appeal has permitted
possession challenges based on S.7(1) cultivation being
declared invalid by Alberta.

9. The Crown's failure to amend the Criminal Code to reflect
the Krieger invalidation of S.7(1) has induced the judiciary
and the bar who obey it's statutes into error.

10. Your Honor, this is not a motion to declare bad laws
unconstitutional. It's a motion for release because sections
4(1) and 7(1) have already been abrogated in the Parker and
Krieger cases and Parliament has never re-enacted them.

11. If there is any chance that the repeal of the
prohibition on the cultivation of marijuana in section 7(1)
by the highest court in Alberta applies to Quebec when that
decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, to
keep me in prison awaiting an appeal on a dead law must
constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

12. The Court of Appeal for Quebec suggested in February
that trial judges should be more sensitive to the suggestion
of sentences of house arrest for those found guilty in
charges of of production of marijuana. It should also apply
in granting bail before having been found guilty.

13. If S.7(1) has already been abrogated by the Krieger
Court, my motion cannot be a constitutional one against the
same S.7(1) that is dead. A constitutional challenge must
necessarily be against a live law. But the government has
refused to erase S.7(1) from the Criminal Code of Canada
and, therefore, the Bench and the Bar are under the
impression that my challenge must also attempt to abrogate
the law like Krieger did. My challenge is to declare that
the was abrogated and should have been erased from the
Criminal Code of Canada. What constitutional right have I
invoked in my challenge? I'm not sick like Krieger or
Parker? If Krieger killed S.7(1), do I have to aim at it
again just because the government has refused to erase it
from the Criminal Code once it was repealed?

10. These representations are made in support of an
application for release pending my appeal.
Rodney Barclay and Pierre Landry
Dated at Gatineau on Aug. 10 2005

Cour d'appel du Quebec
Representations en francais pour Marcel Mercier

1. Appendix #1 est le bulletin du 23 decembre 2003 de la
Cour supreme du Canada ou les justices McLachlin, Major et
Fish note:
"Le 11 decembre 2000, Court of Queen's Bench (Acton J.)
La section 7(1) en ce qui concerne la marijuana, est
declaree non-consistante avec la Charte..." La Cour supreme
dit que la S.7(1) est non-consistante avec la Charte, c'est
tout. C'est assez. Ca ne dit pas que la S.7(1) n'est pas
consistante avec la Charte seulement pour les Canadians
malades."
App.#1 Bulletin de la Cour supreme du 23 decembre 2003

2. Apres que l'epileptic Parker ait fait declare la
prohibition contre la possession de la marijuana dans la
S.4(1) invalide par la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, la
Couronne a amende le Code criminel et a arrete les
procedures contre les 4000 accusations qui restaient, pas
seulement ceux des malades.
App.#2 "4000 pot charges stayed" depuis 2001

3. Apres que le souffrant de la sclerose en plaque Grant
Krieger ait fait declare la prohibition contre la culture de
la marijuana dans la S.7(1) invalide par la Cour d'appel de
l'Alberta, la Couronne n'as pas corrige le Code criminel et
n'a pas arrete les procedures contres les accusations que
restaient, malades ou autres.
App.#3 Decision Krieger de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta

4. Quand meme, la couronne federale David Frankel dans son
Memorandeum du 20 mai 2003 avoue a la Cour supreme que: "[57
Telle qu'elle l'est maintenant, la loi 7(1) a ete declaree
de nul force ni effet par la plus haute cour de l'Alberta."
App.#4 L'admission de la Couronne de invalidite de la S.7(1)

5. Les media ont mal-represente l'invalidation Krieger de la
S.7(1) pour tous les Canadiens comme une victoire personelle
pour Krieger.
App.#5 Calgary Herald mal-represente la victoire Krieger

6. Le 20 decembre 2004, le juge Goudge de la Cour d'appel de
l'Ontario qui a declare que la loi contre la possession
avait ete rendu invalide qui a cause l'arret des procedures
contre les 4000 accuses a traite serieusement et a permit la
liberation provisoire de Mike South base sur l'invalidite de
la prohibition contre la culture qui avait ete trouve
coupable de possession.
App.#6 L'appel du detenu Mike South

7. Le 01 fevrier 2004, l'appel a ete enregistre de la
famille Nielsen base sur les invaliditations Parker et
Krielger.
App.#7 Avis d'appel de la famille Nielsen

8. Et donc, la plus haute cour de l'Alberta a declare que la
prohibition sur la marijuana dans la S.7(1) etait invalide,
la Couronne admet que la S.7(1) a ete declare invalide par
l'Alberta, la Cour Supreme du Canada note que la S.7(1) a
ete declare non-consistante avec la Charte, et la Cour
d'appel de l'Ontario a permit les defis contre la possession
base sur la S.7(1) ayant ete declare invalide par l'Alberta.

9. La faillite par la Couronne de amender le Code criminel
pour refleter l'invalidation Krieger a induit les cours et
le barreau dans l'erreur.

10 Ceci n'est pas une requete pour declarer des mauvaises
lois non-constitutionelles. C'est une requete pour
liberation parceque les sections 4(1) et 7(1) ont deja ete
abrogees dans les causes Parker et Krieger et le Parlement
ne les a jamais reconstituees.

11. S'il y a une chance que l'abrogation de la prohibition
de culture de marijuana dans la section 7(1) par la plus
haute cour en Alberta s'applique au Quebec lorsque la
decision est soutenue par la cour supreme du Canada, me
garder en prison en attendant mon proces sous une loi morte
doit constituter un abus du proces de la cour.

12. La cour d'appel du Quebec a suggere en fevrier que les
juges de premiere instance devront etre plus sensibles a des
suggestions de sentences avec sursis pour ceux trouves
coupables dans les cas d'accusations de production de
marijuana. Ca devrait aussi s'appliquer pour accorder une
caution avant meme d'avoir ete trouve coupable.

13. Si la section 7(1) a deja ete abrogee par la Cour
Krieger, ma requete ne peut pas etre un defi constitutionnel
contre la meme s.7(1) qui est morte. Un defi constitutionnel
doit necessairement etre contre une loi vivante! Mais le
gouvernement a refuse d'effacer la s.7(1) du code criminel
du Canada et, donc, la cour et le barreau sont sous
l'impression que mon defi doit essayer encore une fois
d'abroger la loi comme la fait Krieger et avec double
signification. Mon defi est de declarer que la loi a ete
abrogee et aurait du etre effacee du Code Criminel du
Canada. Quel droit constitutionnel ai-je invoque dans mon
defi? Je ne suis pas malade et ne peut pas compter sur la
Charte comme Krieger ou Parker? Si Krieger a tue la s.7(1),
dois-je la viser encore parce que le gouvernement a refuse
de l'effacer du Code Criminel lorsque elle a ete abrogee?

14. Ces representations sont fait pour soutenir la requete
pour extension de temps pour appeler et pour liberation en
attendant l'appel.
Marcel Mercier
Date a Gatineau le 10 aout 2005

JCT: So that's what's going on today. I hope Shawna attends
though we're not sure whether they're going to move them all
down to the courthouse like last time. Probably if Le Droit
wants to finish their coverage. Ha.

Of course, should Justice Dalphond see the reason, then
he'll be reminded about Michael Funk, Larry Dupont and
Stephane Levert who had their releases refused last time.

Cross our fingers and say a prayer that can help end
Marcel's tribulations at the hands of David Frankel's
illegitimate prosecutors.


--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics